A. An owner of property that in the owner's opinion has been valued too high or otherwise improperly valued or listed on the roll may file a petition with the assessor on a written form prescribed by the department.
B. The petition shall state the owner's opinion of the full cash value of the property and substantial information that justifies that opinion of value for the assessor to consider for purposes of basing a change in classification or correction of the valuation. For purposes of this subsection, the owner provides substantial information to justify the opinion of value by stating the method or methods of valuation on which the opinion is based and:
1. Under the income approach, including the information required in section 42-16052.
2. Under the market approach, including the full cash value of at least one comparable property in the same geographic area or the sale of the subject property.
3. Under the cost approach, including the cost to build or rebuild the property plus the land value.
C. The petition may include more than one parcel of property if they are part of the same economic unit according to department guidelines or if they are owned by the same owner, have the same use, are appealed on the same basis and are located in the same geographic area, as determined pursuant to department guidelines, and are on a form prescribed by the department.
D. The petition shall be filed within sixty days after the date the assessor mailed the notice of valuation or the amended notice of valuation under section 42-15101. United States postal service postmark dates are evidence of the date petitions were filed for purposes of this subsection.
E. The petition for review form for property that is listed as class three pursuant to section 42-12003 shall contain simplified instructions and shall be separate from the petition forms used for other classes of property.
Notes of Decisions
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 9× “See A.R.S. § 42-16051. ¶ 7 Sempre bases its right to forego administrative review in favor of a direct appeal in tax court primarily on A.”
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 8× “Taxpayer instituted an appeal by filing a petition with the Assessor pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16051 (2003). ¶ 4 When the Assessor recommended no change, Taxpayer appealed to the State Equalization Board (the “Board”) under A.”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 3× “at 553–54; see also A.R.S. § 42-16051(B)(1)–(3) (identifying income, market, and cost approaches to property valuation); Mohave County v.”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 2× “¶14 After a five-day bench trial, the tax court ruled for Mesquite, valuing the property at $105 million for the 2019 tax year.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “§ 42-16255(B), the County asserts that error correction relief is not available because Vista Verde seeks a review of the overall valuation or legal classification of the Property, but failed to file a timely administrative appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16051(D). Again, we turn…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16051(A) — 1 case
Staples v. Concord Equities, L.L.C., 209 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Taxpayer instituted an appeal by filing a petition with the Assessor pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16051 (2003). ¶ 4 When the Assessor recommended no change, Taxpayer appealed to the State Equalization Board (the “Board”) under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16051(B)(1) — 2 cases
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. 2024).
“at 553–54; see also A.R.S. § 42-16051(B)(1)–(3) (identifying income, market, and cost approaches to property valuation); Mohave County v.”
Mesquite v. Ador (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“¶14 After a five-day bench trial, the tax court ruled for Mesquite, valuing the property at $105 million for the 2019 tax year.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 42-16051(D) — 2 cases
Sempre Ltd. P'ship v. Maricopa Cnty., 235 P.3d 259 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
“See A.R.S. § 42-16051. ¶ 7 Sempre bases its right to forego administrative review in favor of a direct appeal in tax court primarily on A.”
Vista Verde v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
“§ 42-16255(B), the County asserts that error correction relief is not available because Vista Verde seeks a review of the overall valuation or legal classification of the Property, but failed to file a timely administrative appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 42-16051(D). Again, we turn…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.